"Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store"

A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.
Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."
Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."
Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him." . . . .

“Now one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think; if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That’s the best.”

UPDATE: What is the deal with Obama to keep making this claim? The press question is nauseatingly kissing up to Obama.

4/27/2012

Canadian member of parliament resigns from NDP over gun registration issue

Interesting story about how the NDP yanked Hyer's speaking time before the House so that he couldn't make a public statement on his decision to resign.

Bruce Hyer has quit the federal New Democrats, electing to sit as an Independent member of Parliament, weeks after being at odds with his party about the end of the long-gun registry.The decision by one of the party's northern Ontario MPs marks the second time this year the party has suffered a resignation, the first being Lise St-Denis who now sits as a Liberal. . . .Hyer was one of two New Democrats to vote with the government to end the long-gun registry, a move for which he was disciplined. His departure leaves the NDP with 101 seats.

More on Obama as Thug: Why campaign donations should be anonymous

Would Obama have attacked these people if they had given to him? Obviously, not. From Kim Strassel at the WSJ:

This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them. . . .The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents. . . .

1) ""Call them what you will: 'Stand Your Ground' or 'Castle Doctrine' laws." In doing so, he is grouping together two laws that are in fact radically different - this faulty conflation is at the center of his entire argument."

The difference between 'Stand Your Ground' and 'Castle Doctrine' laws is over where they apply, not what the rule is. Both laws remove the duty to retreat. Castle Doctrine laws apply to attacks within ones home as well as sometimes on ones property. Once you step off your property and onto the sidewalk Stand Your Ground laws apply. The principle of whether one has to retreat is the core of this debate so I have a hard time understanding how these laws are "radically different."

2) "For example, Lott later claims that 'In states adopting Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws from 1977 to 2005, murder rates fell by 9% and overall violent crime by 11%.' But 'Stand Your Ground' largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless. But "Stand Your Ground" largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless." [Emphasis added.]

I didn't say that I had studied all states that had ever adopted these laws. I made it clear in both my research and the New York Daily News article what period of time over which the laws were adopted was studied. Despite the spin that Media Matters puts on it, their point "largely" is completely consistent with what I did. In addition, Media Matters is wrong about Florida's Stand Your Ground law: the laws was enacted on October 1, 2005, which is within the 1977 to 2005 period. A complete list of the state laws was provided in the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 332).

3) ""Castle Doctrine" typically refers to the codification of centuries old common law stating that an individual owes no duty to retreat to an invader of his or her domicile."

4) "While Lott would like his readers to believe that "Stand Your Ground" is a mainstay of American legal tradition . . . "

My New York Daily Newspiece makes it clear that the laws had changed over time: "Earlier statutes affirmatively required potential victims to retreat as much as possible before using deadly force to protect themselves."

5) "Actually states that did require duty to retreat largely did so only under the narrow circumstance where the victim could do so safely."

My piece clearly stated that the requirement to retreat "sometimes putting their lives in jeopardy." The problem that arises is a practical one: whether a prosecutor agrees with the victim over whether they had retreated far enough. As I wrote in National Review Online: "a prosecutor might argue that a victim didn’t retreat sufficiently. There have been many cases where victims have been chased and knocked down a couple of times before firing in self-defense, and yet prosecutors claimed that the victim still could have done more to retreat before firing their gun." Again, I point to the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010) for examples of this.

6) "Lott's dubious legal analysis continues with the statement, "The supposedly infamous laws passed in Florida and elsewhere, in contrast, use a 'reasonable person' standard for determining when it is proper to defend oneself -- requiring that a reasonable person would believe that another individual intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death on them." Of course what Lott fails to mention is that the elimination of the duty to retreat often means that "Stand Your Ground" confrontations end with only one surviving witness to attest to the reasonableness of using deadly force: the shooter himself."

How is this different from any murder case? In the Zimmerman case not only is there a lot of forensic evidence (wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head, broken nose, grass on his back, wetness on his back, and I am sure other pieces after the crime labs have been able to examine the evidence) but there are also several witnesses. Despite Media Matters founder David Brock illegally using guns for his personal protection, here is the point that Media Matters obviously won't accept applying to others: these laws are set up so that law-abiding good citizens who wouldn't carry a gun unless then were legally able to do so can protect themselves and keep from being killed.

7) "In Florida there were 43 cases of justifiable homicide in 2005. By 2009, the last year that complete figures were available, the number had risen to 105. The very data cited by Lott confirms this trend is mirrored nationwide. But while Lott criticizes the media for implying causality between "Stand Your Ground" laws and rise in justifiable homicides, at no point does he provide his own theory about what is really behind the uptick. . . ."

Since Media Matters assumes that its readers won't actually read what I have written, let me quote from my piece: "But part of that increase is just a trick of numbers; it occurs because the laws have reclassified what is considered 'self-defense,' not because more people are being shot." in addition, I also note: "Curiously, though, this went unnoticed: Over the same period of time, there has been an increase in justifiable killings by police. And there are no similar data problems here, no changing definitions or large changes in jurisdictions reporting. Between 2000 and 2010, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports show that justifiable police killings rose by 25%, rising to 387 from 309, suggesting that something else is occurring." How is Media Matters then accurate to claim: "at no point does he provide his own theory about what is really behind the uptick."

8) "John Lott's methodology is simple. Develop a conclusion, and then invent whatever legal or statistical justifications are needed to reach it. At this point, it is shocking that anyone outside of the National Rifle Association gives any credence to his claims."

Really? After all their errors in post after post that they put up, this is their name calling response? Because of having to learn the hard way, I have made a screen shot of their existing webpage before I put up my critique.

More on how sensitive public opinion is to new news on the economy

More Americans than forecast filed applications for unemployment benefits last week andconsumer confidence declined by the most in a year, signaling that a cooling labor market may restrain household spending.Jobless claims fell to 388,000 from a revised 389,000 the prior week that was the highest since early January, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index declined to minus 35.8 from minus 31.4 the previous week. . . .

This Reuters article by Zimmerman paints a very sympathetic picture of a deeply religious man who has tried to help others. The long article contains numerous examples where Zimmerman tried to help out others. It is a tragedy that a man who has tried to do so much good for his community has been so grievously maligned by the media and others. I hope that people feel bad for the damage that they have done to Zimmerman. From Reuters (the entire article is a highly recommended read):

Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account."Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin." . . .

Why Zimmerman got himself a concealed handgun permit.

A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009. The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show."Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said."Get a gun."That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. . . .

Zimmerman apparently had learned that the police would not always be able to respond in a timely manner.

The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess, he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away.This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin. . . .

UPDATE: There is some good news. Zimmerman's legal defense can easily cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars or even a half million -- murder trials are very costly. In addition, Zimmerman is currently unemployed. However, donations to help cover Zimmerman's costs have reached over $200,000, so that is a very helpful start. Hopefully, with articles like this from Reuters the total can get closer to covering his costs.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Panel to review law has first meeting scheduled for May 1st

Gov. Rick Scott's task force on Florida's self-defense laws, including what's known as the "stand your ground" law, has set its first meeting for May 1.
The governor's office on Tuesday announced the meeting will be held at the Florida Department of Transportation's headquarters in Tallahassee.
It will focus on administrative matters and no public comment will be taken, but it will be streamed live by the Florida Channel athttp://thefloridachannel.org . . . .

Members include state Rep Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, who authored the 2005 bill that passed the Legislature; Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle; former Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Bell of Pensacola and Okaloosa County Sheriff Larry Ashley. Several Orlando-area legislators are also members.The task force is chaired by Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, and the vice-chair is the Rev. R.B. Holmes Jr., a prominent African American minister in Tallahassee. . . .

Sheriff Larry Ashley, of Shalimar, Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office.

State Representative Dennis Baxley, of Ocala, Florida House of Representatives, District 24.

• Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, sponsored Stand Your Ground in 2005 and has indicated it doesn’t need to be changed.
• Sen. David Simmons, R-Maitland, co-sponsored and voted for Stand Your Ground. He told the Herald/Times bureau that he was instrumental in drafting the final language of the law as House Judiciary Committee chairman, and was Baxley’s roommate at the time.
• Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, joined the Legislature in 2010, and the first bill he passed was a controversial gun rights bill banning doctors from asking patients about gun ownership.
• Sen. Gary Siplin, D-Orlando, voted for the bill in 2005. It passed the Senate unanimously.

Rep. Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, the incoming speaker ofthe Florida House of Representatives has a piece on the topic available here:

In the Florida House of Representatives, we will review the current law, but we must not diminish the fundamental rights afforded to every American in our Constitution. We must not give criminals the upper hand over law-abiding citizens in Florida.

4/26/2012

83% of voters think the US is still in a recession

One reason the president’s job approval suffers: 83 percent of voters think the country is still in a recession -- including 35 percent who think things could get worse. That’s little changed from a year ago, when 82 percent thought the country was still in a recession (with 38 percent saying things could get worse). Overall, 15 percent of voters believe the recession is over. That’s mostly unchanged from 16 percent last year (April 2011).Meanwhile, the poll finds an increase in optimism over the past two years. Fifty-four percent today think that while the economy is still in recession, things are getting better or think the recession is over and the economy is recovering. That’s up from 49 percent last year, and 43 percent who felt that way in 2010. . . .

Increasing support for gun ownership

Currently, 49% of Americans say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45% say it is more important to control gun ownership. Opinion has been divided since early 2009, shortly after Barack Obama’s election. From 1993 through 2008, majorities had said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights. . . .

Can Obama keep bashing the rich while taking the vacations he takes?

Obama is a fairly wealthy guy. The question is whether people resent Obama using taxpayer money for outrageous vacations more than they dislike Romney r being wealthy. From the Washington Examiner:

Blue collar Democratic voters, stuck taking depressing “staycations” because they can’t afford gas and hotels, are resentful of the first family’s 17 lavish vacations around the world and don’t want their tax dollars paying for the Obamas’ holidays, according to a new analysis of swing voters.“They view everything through their own personal situation and if they can’t afford to do it, they can’t enjoy it, they don’t like Obama using their tax dollars to benefit himself,” said pollster John McLaughlin. “In this case, they see him as out of touch. While they are struggling he’s not sharing in that struggle and he’s basically doing what they can’t do on their tax dollars,” added the GOP pollster.He and several other top-tier Republican pollsters, organized by Resurgent Republic, traveled to 11 battleground states to host focus groups of independent and swing voters, mostly Democrats, who voted for President Obama in 2008 but who are now on the fence. . . .The theme, said McLaughlin, is that the first family “is out of touch” with working class voters. . . .

He added that the president’s attack on the rich and GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s wealth is working . . . .

Obama administration's view of oil companies: "Crucify them"

. . . Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.
In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.
Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:
“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.
“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.” . . .

Bizarre news: "Robber who broke into hair salon is beaten by its black-belt owner and kept as a sex slave for three days... fed only Viagra"

This is a strange news story that could probably only be possible with modern medicine. From the UK Daily Mail:

A Russian man who tried to rob a hair salon ended up as the victim when the female shop owner overpowered him, tied him up naked and then used him as a sex slave for three days. Viktor Jasinski, 32, admitted to police that he had gone to the salon in Meshchovsk, Russia, with the intention of robbing it.But the tables were turned dramatically when he found himself overcome by owner Olga Zajac, 28, who happened to be a black belt in karate.She allegedly floored the would-be robber with a single kick.Then, in a scene reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, police say Zajac dragged the semi-conscious Jasinski to a back room of the salon and tied him up with a hair dryer cable.She allegedly stripped him naked and, for the next three days, used him as a sex slave to 'teach him a lesson' - force feeding him Viagra to keep the lesson going. . . .

4/25/2012

First time since the 1930s that flow of illegal Mexicans into US might have been reversed?

Personally, I can't see how this small change is statistically significant, but nonetheless here is what Pew finds:

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the U.S. has stopped and may have reversed. . . .

Concealed handgun permits rising in Ohio

In the eight years since Ohio passed a concealed weapons law, county sheriffs have issued 296,588 permits to carry firearms in purses, holsters and vehicles, with more than half of those coming since President Barack Obama was elected. . . .

Piece at the New York Daily News: "Stand Your Ground makes sense"

Call them what you will: “Stand Your Ground” or “Castle Doctrine” laws. Mayor Bloomberg and members of Congress, speaking on the House floor, go so far as to label them “shoot first” laws.

This is a gross exaggeration — a slander, in fact, against legislation designed to reform a flaw in our treatment of self-defense. Earlier statutes affirmatively required potential victims to retreat as much as possible before using deadly force to protect themselves, sometimes putting their lives in jeopardy.

The supposedly infamous laws passed in Florida and elsewhere, in contrast, use a “reasonable person” standard for determining when it is proper to defend oneself — requiring that a reasonable person would believe that another individual intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death on them.

The wild speculation that the laws give broad license for vigilantes to go around recklessly shooting people are a totally irresponsible caricature. Ultimately, it is judges or jurors who determine what constitutes a reasonable fear under such a law, not the person who fires the gun. . . .

Piece at the New York Daily News:

Call them what you will: “Stand Your Ground” or “Castle Doctrine” laws. Mayor Bloomberg and members of Congress, speaking on the House floor, go so far as to label them “shoot first” laws.

This is a gross exaggeration — a slander, in fact, against legislation designed to reform a flaw in our treatment of self-defense. Earlier statutes affirmatively required potential victims to retreat as much as possible before using deadly force to protect themselves, sometimes putting their lives in jeopardy.

The supposedly infamous laws passed in Florida and elsewhere, in contrast, use a “reasonable person” standard for determining when it is proper to defend oneself — requiring that a reasonable person would believe that another individual intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death on them.

Pundits who’ve had a field day ripping apart Stand Your Ground laws repeatedly fail to mention that crucial “reasonable person” standard.
The wild speculation that the laws give broad license for vigilantes to go around recklessly shooting people are a totally irresponsible caricature. Ultimately, it is judges or jurors who determine what constitutes a reasonable fear under such a law, not the person who fires the gun. . . .

Obama administration considering banning the importation of some shotguns

. . . The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined "Sporting Purpose" test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be "military" by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban. Ironically, many shotguns with "military" features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not. Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it "will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns." . . .

With all the negative stories about guns these days, it is good to remember that every day people are using guns defensively even if they don't get national news coverage

Authorities in Georgia say a grandmother foiled a robbery attempt by two armed men by getting into a shootout with them, injuring one man.Police told The Telegraph that Lulu Campbell just dropped off her grandson at her daughter's house early Saturday morning when someone demanded money outside her car, threatening to shoot her.Campbell says the man fired at her, missing. The 57-year-old fired back, striking him in the chest. Her truck sustained eight bullet holes in the hood, one in the grill. Both front side windows were destroyed. The second man fled after she shot at him.Campbell, who owns convenience stores and gas stations, always is armed. . . .

Washington Post recognizes that new hires is lower in the recovery than it was during the recession

We spoke with John Lott, an economist and Fox News contributor who helped Norquist come up with his numbers. The gist of Norquist’s figures appears to be correct, according to our own calculations of seasonally adjusted BLS data on job openings and labor turnover.Overall, the number of new hires has decreased slightly from an average of about 4.3 million per month during the recession to an average of 4.1 million per month during the 32 months on record since the end of the downturn. . . .Norquist made a valid point that the number of new hires has dropped on average since the recession ended, and that’s certainly something the president needs to address. . . .

Democrats explain it like this:

Democrats argue that these numbers miss the larger point: that the economy is adding jobs overall. Indeed, our calculations show that net job turnover — new hires minus layoffs, retirements, and so forth — is positive. In fact, it’s right where it left off before the recession, with the United States averaging roughly 200,000 more jobs per month.“There’s no question that the job market is improving,” said Jared Bernstein, former adviser to Vice President Biden and senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “It’s definitely improving too slowly, but at least let’s get the sign right. It’s not a negative right now, it’s a positive.” . . . .

The problem is that quits have fallen and quits fall because people are afraid that it would be difficult to find a new job.

4/24/2012

So why doesn't this count as a donation from George Clooney?

I got this email from the Obama campaign tonight.

Take the difference between how much Obama raised for a donors to have dinner with him right now and how much he would raise from this get together at Clooney's house. Wouldn't that be a non-debatable measure of Clooney's donation to Obama's campaign? So much for the $2,300 personal limit.

Matt Richtel: "New Fashion Wrinkle: Stylishly Hiding the Gun"

UPDATE added below addressing Media Matters' claims.Matt Richtel has an interesting article in the New York Times on how with so many people having concealed carry permits, the fashion industry is catching on that there is market to designing clothing for people who carry concealed handguns.

Woolrich, a 182-year-old clothing company, describes its new chino pants as an elegant and sturdy fashion statement, with a clean profile and fabric that provides comfort and flexibility.And they are great for hiding a handgun.The company has added a second pocket behind the traditional front pocket for a weapon. Or, for those who prefer to pack their gun in a holster, it can be tucked inside the stretchable waistband. The back pockets are also designed to help hide accessories, like a knife and a flashlight.The chinos, which cost $65, are not for commandos, but rather, the company says, for the fashion-aware gun owner. And Woolrich has competition. Several clothing companies are following suit, building businesses around the sharp rise in people with permits to carry concealed weapons.Their ranks swelled to around seven million last year from five million in 2008, partly because of changes to state laws on concealed handguns.Shawn Thompson, 35, who works at an auto dealership in eastern Kentucky, bought two shirts last month from the Woolrich Elite Concealed Carry line. Both, he wrote on his blog, are a step up from more rugged gear.“Most of the clothes I used in the past to hide my sidearm looked pretty sloppy and had my girlfriend complaining about my looks,” he wrote, adding in an interview, “I’m not James Bond or nothing, but these look pretty nice.” . . .

The story has been run in a large number of newspapers from Alaska to California to others. The Times of London and The Australian also had an article by William Pavia that went into more the greater concern that women have over fashion.

UPDATE: The loonies are coming out of the woodwork. Media Matters has a piece that attacks the piece for referencing me without actually disagreeing with anything that I said to Mr. Richtel. I will go through some of the initial points raised by Media Matter, but as usual everything that they write is wrong. First here is what the Richtel wrote that set off Media Matters and then I have listed their comments.

By contrast, in 1984 only 8 states had such statutes, and 15 did not allow handgun carrying at all, said John Lott, a researcher of gun culture who has held teaching or research posts at a number of universities, including the University of Chicago.Only one state, Illinois, now forbids handgun carrying in any form, but the legislature is considering a change.A majority of states have long allowed the open carrying of handguns, said Mr. Lott, who also provided the data on gun permits. But the reality, said Mr. Lott and other gun experts, is that people do not want to show others that they are carrying a weapon or invite sharp questioning from the police. . . .

From Media Matters.

1) "It's curious that the Times went to Lott for comment, given that the paper has previously noted that studies of his work 'have found serious flaws in his data and methodology.'"

Media Matters rarely responds to what I write and of course they have prevented me from leaving comments on their website (they don't want to confuse the audience). I made a post about the NY Times' piece here, though I kept it limited because I was hoping that the Times would publish my letter to the editor. Unfortunately, they didn't publish it.

Dear Letters Editor:

Michael Luo misrepresented my research in his December 27 news article (Guns in Public, and Out of Sight). He claims “a few independent researchers” confirm my research but “many other studies have found no net effect of concealed carry laws or have come to the opposite conclusion."Overwhelmingly, research support my results. Among peer-reviewed academic studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime increases slightly [a slightly out of date list is available here and the new totals are discussed here].Luo baselessly attacks my work as containing unnamed "serious flaws in his data and methodology” and he never called me for comment. Indeed, Human Events reports that Luo even told one interviewee: “there is no reason to call John Lott.” He has previously inaccurately attacked me without calling for a comment.Despite Luo's claim that carry laws haven't significantly increased carrying by the law-abiding, there are seven million permit holders.Sincerely,John R. Lott, Jr.

2) "Lott first gained fame in the 1990s for his claim that the passage of laws allowing for the concealed carry of handguns causes levels of violent crime to drop -- a claim that has since been debunked."

Again, among peer-reviewed academic studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime increases slightly [a slightly out of date list is available here and the new totals are discussed here].

3)"Lott has since been convincingly alleged to have fabricated data to claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses don't involve the firing of a weapon."

I may have been "alleged to have fabricated data," but this ignores the statements by those who say that they took my survey, the replication of the survey, and the differences between my survey and those of others. In addition, where I have referenced this survey the data was biased against the claim that I was making. I argued that the simple defensive brandishing or warning shots are not news worthy. The higher the rate of defensive brandishing or warning shots, the easier it is to explain why the media is not biased when it doesn't cover most defensive gun uses. If I wanted to show that the media was more biased, I should have used the surveys with lower defensive brandishing rates. But ultimately the point of science is replication, and, as just noted, the results were replicated.
Media Matters' link refers to something I wrote up regarding the accuracy of NICS background checks. My response to their claims is available here.

Here is what I wrote in the LA Times: "Well, more than nine months have passed and the first crime numbers are in. Last week, the FBI announced that the number of murders nationwide fell by 3.6% last year, the first drop since 1999. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the assault weapons ban ended."So what happened? The FBI data is available here.

The monthly data is shown here. The Assault Weapons Ban sunset in mid September 2004. Yet, the murder rate did fall during the last quarter, and it fell more in the fourth quarter of 2004 than it fell during the fourth quarter of 2003.

When I wrote the piece I not only had the FBI UCR data for 2004 in hand, but I had called up the FBI and I had been told that the murder rate numbers had fallen in the fourth quarter.I also wrote this in the LA Times: "Overall, violent crime also declined last year, according to the FBI, and the complete statistics carry another surprise for gun control advocates. Guns are used in murder and robbery more frequently then in rapes and aggravated assaults, but after the assault weapons ban ended, the number of murders and robberies fell more than the number of rapes and aggravated assaults."The FBI UCR violent crime data is available here.

So everything that I wrote about was correct, but Media Matters still references this claimed attack as evidence that I "cited data that doesn't exist."

4b) From Media Matters' 2005 hit piece on my op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that the current piece links to: "The FBI will not release state-by-state and month-by-month UCR data for 2004 until fall 2005, as part of its final report "Crime in the United States, 2004" (the bureau has released previous years' reports in late October)."

Media Matters may not understand this, but the FBI's UCR had already released an estimate on what different violent crime rates were for the first half of 2004. Thus it was possible to compare the number of crimes for the entire year to those over the first half of the year and tease out the number of crimes in both the first six months and last six months of 2004. If there was any substantial change in crimes during the last 3.5 months of 2004, it would presumably show up in the estimate for the last six months of that year. Finally, in addition, I had called up a person who I had gotten data from in the past at the FBI and asked them whether violent crime rates had fallen in the last quarter of 2004 and I had been told "yes."